Vox Day's misogyny

I happen to be in Chicago right now attending the annual meeting of the Society of Surgical Oncology. It's a meeting that I try to make it to almost every year, and usually it's a necessary update to my knowledge base. Consequently, I only just this morning noticed my fellow ScienceBloggers Mark Hoofnagle, Mark Chu-Carroll, and P.Z. Myers piling on the latest example of the sexist misogyny that is Vox Day, this time in (where else) WorldNetDaily, in an article entitled The real assault on science. Vox's article, in essence, views the application of Title IX to science education to increase the representation of women in science as a grave threat to science. Why? Well, let me give you a taste of the hunk o' hunk o' burning stupid that underlie his reasons in the form of a couple of quotes:

But this is not to say there is not a genuine threat to all three aspects of science today. Unsurprisingly, it comes from the same force that is the primary threat to the survival of Western civilization: female equalitarianism. Flush with their success in decimating the collegiate sports programs of America, the equalitarians have now set their sights on applying the infamous Title IX quotas to science education, despite the fact that women already earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees and a majority of doctorates. If successful in this effort, and initial signs indicate that they probably will be, in 30 years, academic science in America will be no more intellectually respectable or relevant than womyn's studies are today.

The idea of biology classes being taught by lesbian professors who believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth or calculus courses being taught by women who can't do long division may sound impossible today, but tell that to any software developer, and he'll be able to provide you with plenty of current examples of computer science engineers, some with advanced CS degrees, who have no idea how to even begin writing a computer program.

Women love education; it's the actual application they don't particularly like. Whereas the first thought of a woman who enjoys the idea of painting is to take an art appreciation class, a similarly interested man is more likely to just pick up a paintbrush and paint something - usually a naked woman.

While I sympathize with P.Z. when he asks "Why do we even stoop to mentioning Vox Day?" the above is just so...dumb that it pretty much speaks for itself. The last part, as Mark Chu-Carroll points out, not only buries the needle on the irony meter, it causes the thing to spark, smoke, and then melt into a quivering pile of plastic and wire, given that Vox is the ultimate example of someone who doesn't actually do any of the things that he likes to pontificate about and, worse, demonstrates day in and day out that he doesn't really understand the scientific method or history.

The only thing I'd quibble with is why anyone is surprised or particularly outraged anymore. Let me go back in time for a moment to three years ago.

At that time, this blog was just an itty-bitty blog with a huge ego that didn't match. Its usual traffic was generally between 100-300 visits a day. One day, I came across Vox's blog. In particular, I came across a post by him (indirectly linked here; I'm loathe to do anything that might increase Vox's Technorati rating these days now that my monthly traffic is roughly equal to his) in which he blithely characterized "far too many women" as being "fascists at heart" as part of "Why women shouldn't vote: Reason 345 & 346." He then went on to blame women for fascism, concluding "There is a reason why a fascist demagogue like Benito Mussolini made suffragism the very first point in the Fascist Manifesto, after all." After I launched a brief and sarcastic broadside at this bit of idiocy, Vox actually noticed me (even going so far as to imply that I must be a woman--which to him appears to be the ultimate insult!), leading to a his fans descending on my blog en masse and producing the longest comment thread yet seen here.

I guess what I'm getting at with this trip down blog memory lane is that none of this is anything new for Vox. It's what he does. He's clueless about evolution; he's clueless about other sciences; he's clueless about history; and he appears to have nothing but contempt for women, at least when they try to take on roles that he seems to perceive as male. (I'm guessing he likes women just fine when they're cooking, cleaning, and telling him how smart he is; it's the strong women, women who have the temerity to demand equal rights or do jobs that have traditionally been viewed as male or who even--gasp!--demand the right to vote who appear to provoke a visceral reaction in him.) In other words, there's no surprise in Vox's latest tirade. He's said it all before in a variety of ways, some even worse than this. None of this means that I think we should ignore him when he posts something as offensive to thinking humans as he did the other day.

More like this

After yesterday's post about the great women of computer science, I noticed my SciBling MarkH over at the Denialism blog had discovered Vox Day and his latest burst of stupidity, in which he alleges that the greatest threat to science is.... women. Because, you see, women are all stupid.
The…

Via Ed, if you puked on VoxDay's shoes after his column earlier this week in WorldNetDaily:
But this is not to say there is not a genuine threat to all three aspects of science today. Unsurprisingly, it comes from the same force that is the primary threat to the survival of Western civilization:…

Let me answer my own question: because he is an appallingly freakish idiot, and always a reliable source for the most amazingly inane claims. Don't worry, that link takes you to Mark Chu-Carroll's evisceration of his latest insane rant, that women are intellectual inferiors who can't teach biology…

I love a crank that you only have to quote to utterly humiliate. From the guy who brought the logic of the Third Reich to bear on the immigration issue we have this thoughtful analysis of the real threat to science:
As I have demonstrated in "The Irrational Atheist," religion is not a threat to…

But Orac he's in MENSA, writes for WND and writes Fantasy/SCI-FI books from a Christian perspective. He must be freaking brilliant.

Mr. Vox Day pontificates on science at great length. Has he ever published a paper on any scientific subject in s perr reviewed journal? Someone who have never done so is in a poor position to criticize real scientists.

One of the nicer things about no longer being a Christian is I don't have to acknowledge any kind of spiritual kinship with wankers like Teddy Beale (even back in the day, I would have found him....repellant).

"Has he ever published a paper on any scientific subject in s perr reviewed journal? " Well of course not they are all run by women and feminist sympathizers. They would never allow a real men their due respect :)

"but tell that to any software developer, and he'll be able to provide you with plenty of current examples of computer science engineers, some with advanced CS degrees, who have no idea how to even begin writing a computer program." Hold on let me clean my keyboard it's hard to write Medical DSP code on water soaked keyboard. Wow he might actually be funny if he was being facetious.
First we are called programmers, software engineers or computer scientist (I don't actually see this title much outside of academia), the later don't write much code. A computer science engineer is some Fribble like concoction of a damaged mind. He is correct in that I can point out loads of bad programmers. I will also agree that SOME are women, biomed is heavily female (60%). The most common, most incompetent, insufferable excuses for programmers (don't get me started on engineers) are male from patriarchal societies. The more they buy into the "male therefore right" philosophy the worse their programing skills and people skills are. The depth of their arrogant stupidity would make me laugh if it wasn't for the effort not to strangle them.

I'm so sad i read that. I had no idea people like that still existed. Honestly, i thought that kind of ill-informed hate was a myth.

I don't even feel guilty that my 10 years of service to Medicinal Chemistry has brought the level of science down. I do wonder, however, if he and i went head-to-head in an exam room with either just a few subject GREs, or better yet real problems faced by synthetic organic or medicinal chemists in the real world, who would get the higher grade?

...biology classes being taught by lesbian professors who believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth

This part just gets funnier every time I read it. I'm not a lesbian (not that there's anything wrong with that!) but I do teach a human reproductive biology course. Perhaps I should see what is involved in getting it reclassified as 'Mythology 120'.

I feel your pain, ytrrai, but I've no doubt that either one of us could kick Vox's ass all over the map on any scientific aptitude test--even without resorting to the hypnotic effects of our 'feminine wiles'.

Am I the only one who had the phrase "Ada, Lady Lovelace" pop into his head while reading that Vox drivel?

Not only was she an accomplished mathematician (the enchantress of numbers, Babbage called her), she is generally acknowledged to have been the first computer programmer and even wrote about the possibility of bugs creeping into the process.

I wonder what Vox' mother would have to say about his wonderful insight, and just how hard she'd clip his ear...

but it's funny, there are a large number of people who say this sort of stuff whether they believe it or not basically just so they can feel good.

an example recently was getting into an argument with a guy who decided that "Europe sucked" and that there wasn't "anything worth anything" from Europe. When challenged, his point was not that he didn't actually think that it was true, but simply that he was tired of having an inferiority complex about being from the U.S. and therefore he was going to change his opinion about that subject and not allow himself to be swayed anymore because he felt like he wanted to be right about something. interestingly he said all this to cheers from the other people around...

the equalitarians have now set their sights on applying the infamous Title IX quotas to science education, despite the fact that women already earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees and a majority of doctorates

I'm not familiar with the details of Title IX implementation, but wouldn't its application as conservatives understand it to science education mean spending more money on boys as the underrepresented sex?
Why wouldn't he want that?

As to the dignify-or-not question, my opinion is that the only necessary response to Vox Day misogynistic macho posturing is to post this picture with the caption "Vox Day, aka Theodore Beale".

I think that a plausible explanation for Vox Day's comments on women must be the fact that the only one he can think of is Ann Coulter. It would open his eyes if he could get to know at least one really closely. But I'm not saying it will be easy for him (especially after what he wrote).

Ginger Yellow:
I think he's railing about Title IX's forced equality at a department level, not at an overall level, where women do dominate. The logic of the Title IX proponents seems to be a sex related difference in, say, Biology or Physics can only be due to sexual discrimination.

bill r, I think the dearth of women in certain specific scientific disciplines is indeed due to sexual discrimination -- but not the kind that Title IX can do anything about. I'm a woman, and trained in the sciences. (Started out in chemistry, then switched to computer sciences after taking a single Scheme class and falling madly in love with the subject. I'm a software engineer today.) The biggest problem, as I see it, is that girls are self-selecting themselves out of the sciences at an early age. And that's a complicated problem that will probably take quite a while to solve. Gender roles don't change overnight, and although legislation can sometimes help spur things along, they can't do it all. Personally, I think legislation has done what it can already. Girls are guaranteed a fair chance. That we remain underrepresented is partly a result of pressures from the existing hierarchy, who don't expect us to be doing well in science, and pressures from our own gender expectations. Even the biggest feminist in the world may have grown up with the idea that girls don't like science. It gets learned at such a deep level that it's hard even to be aware of it. So I think what we need to do, as women engineers and women scientists, is to keep plugging on. Encourage young gals to take an interest in science. Show them that you can be scientific and feminine at the same time. ;-) And eventually, gradually, it will catch on.

Right on, Callie! I'm a full time researcher, but I spend as much time as I possibly can as a science mentor and advocate, demonstrating to young women--and whomever else may be paying attention--how fun, feasible, and fascinating a career in science can be. When I teach (usually large survey courses for non-majors) I routinely get comments on the end-of-term evals from women students who are pleased and surprised to have had a bio prof who isn't a crusty old greybeard. Getting young women interested is half the battle, and representing the field in a positive and diverse light goes a long way toward winning it.

Over the last several years I have taken kids (mine plus others) to the local university's engineering open house.

The year it fell right on my daughter's tenth birthday I arranged her birthday party around it. So almost four years ago I dragged daughter and half a dozen other girls around to the chemical engineering building where they protected eggs with paper/tape/straws from drops, ate ice cream made with liquid nitrogen, to the electrical engineering department where they put circuits and electrical bits on potatoes and played laser tag, then to the mechanical engineering department where they built structures with straws, then the civil engineering department where they got to sit on a shake table to experience an earthquake and on and on.

Perhaps the best birthday party we've ever done... and all I had to do was bring them there!

[quote]Flush with their success in decimating the collegiate sports programs of America, the equalitarians have now set their sights on applying the infamous Title IX quotas to science education, [/quote]

Cheeze it girls! He's onto us!

We woulda got away with it too, if it hadn't been for that pesky kid.....

World Net Daily serves a purpose just as Respectful Insolence does. And, just like you, they get some things right and some things wrong. Personally, having been flamed by your fans, WND's opinions - or just how they think in general - bother me no more or no less than what I find on your site. To me, it's just science and politics, Right and Left - wingnuts all - with no one wanting to meet anywhere near the middle. And, because of that, neither side realize how stupid they can be - or how little we're actually getting done - and that's the real tragedy as I see it.

Macho man, I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to each of the thirty five points in your screed. I can only opine that, as very little of it has to do directly with Vox Day, you seem to have been looking for a quasi-relevant place to plug in your prepared screed about what a bunch of credulous pinkos we all are.

On topic, though, if you consider the choice to disparage a malignantly ignorant mysogynist like Vox Day to be 'left', then brother, I don't wanna be right.

He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's an American, and he's got a beef - a legitimate one - and not being heard is a big part of it. Men do suffer in this country, and if you can't acknowledge that, then I don't know what to say for you. Wait until the hammer comes (wrongly) down on you, and you realize that everything you defended was just to kick your own ass, and then you might think different.

And, yea, you guys come off as wimpy pinkos. Like David Mamet just wrote, about listening to NPR, you make the brain hurt with your BS. I just that experience the other night, listening to the new Speaker of California's state assembly going on and on about how California's in a financial "crisis" (she must have said the word, like, 50 times) when she - nor anybody else - will discuss the effects of Prop. 13, or do anything to get rid of it. It's a joke.

Title 9 has hurt us. Identity politics hurts us. I love little girls but boys are people too, y'know? I saw a lady with a little boy the other day, and he had made a toy gun and this woman was doing everything in her power to get him to ignore the gun, giving him teddy bears and stuff, and he wouldn't. She's looking at me for help and I'm thinking, "Let the kid play with his gun - he doesn't want a doll." We are what we are - and y'all won't accept it - that's the problem. The exceptions aren't supposed to become the rule. Make room for them, sure, but get a clue:

There's a real world out there - and it'll hit back eventually - and, while you may not care if you're right, you won't want to be all that's left either.

She probably wanted to get the gun away from him in fear that he might bring it to school one day and get arrested as a terrorist.

Laws, judges, schools, employers all should be gender blind just as they should be race blind. It just doesn't happen. Title IX was written to correct major problems in the granting of scholarships in college sports. The fact that administrators chose to apply it in a fashion that reduced the availability of male sports vs. female sports is an administrative choice. I'm sure that was not by design. Note that few schools, if any, chose to reduce football and/or basketball scholarships. The money makers. But, if you were a biathelete.......

And, while many of the comments I leave on the blogs of some female bloggers who make outrageous anti-male statements could be (and are) construed as anti-female (just as any comment that criticizes Israel is construed as being anti-semitic), I rejoice at the fact that I see more and more names of women in the few published papers to which I have access. And that is true across the science spectrum. Why do I rejoice? Because I think people should have the right to become whatever they can become and because I have two daughters and 3 granddaughters. One wants to be an astronomer (this week).

It is quite possible to be enthusiastic about the broad horizons available to women today and to be antagonistic to some of the sillier and antagonistic productions of the anti-male movement. I don't agree much with TCE but I'm sure he can produce horror stories, as most males can, of court prejudices against males, particularly in incidents of a sexual nature. Such prejudice is rampant as is illustrated by the Florida 17 year old male who was given a 10 year sentence for consensual oral sex with a 15 year old female. She, of course, was portrayed as a victim with no mind of her own. I'm sure someone with a lot of money and nothing to do could research scores of these incidents and scores more where a female lead received no such punishment for "seducing" a younger male. That person is not me but if I ever win the lotto........... A male who gets drunk and sleeps with a female he wouldn't have if sober gets laughed at by his buddies. A female charges rape. Victimization. A mental attitude used by some people with severe repercussions for other people. And the other people are usually male.

Once someone has been plunged into this aspect of life - especially the legal part - people who haven't had to deal with it appear naive, while those who have been there can seem crazy. I get that. But the truth is (as I see it) we live in a feminized culture - not in all things but it's there - and to deny that it can tip too far, one way or the other, does a disservice to the idea of equality that, I think, we all desire.

Once someone has been plunged into this aspect of life - especially the legal part - people who haven't had to deal with it appear naive, while those who have been there can seem crazy. I get that. But the truth is (as I see it) we live in a feminized culture - not in all things but it's there - and to deny that it can tip too far, one way or the other, does a disservice to the idea of equality that, I think, we all desire.

Wow. I read it, and it was incredible. Incredibly stupid, but incredible. To think that merely talking about women is enough to make you guilty of,...whatever women want you to be guilty of - that's wild. As someone whose sister was raped by nine guys, I find that fascinating. And, as someone who's never raped anyone, I find the idea that my willingness to ever be critical of women puts me in the same category as those nine guys to be quite enlightening. Please, tell me more:

I guess what I'm getting at with this trip down blog memory lane is that none of this is anything new for Vox. It's what he does.

Yes, and when we post his name on our blogs we spread his name to the lips of every fundy-sympathetic lurker out there. We tend to focus too much on the most freakish and stupid of our opponents and ignore the more reasonable and science friendly theists.

I'm not saying let's never look at the freak show, but let's try to broaden the kind of people we focus our light on.

ladyjillian
2006-04-01 05:18 pm UTC (link)
That's well expressed. I was trying to figure out what I was finding difficult to explain about 'why I don't want to have sex' (with men) and you've explained for me.

From that article you linked to and pretty much sums up the PoV, eh? That article had no references to any of the statistics quoted in it. It was one of those "we all know ...." articles where the in-crowd "knows" all the facts to start with. If you're gonna link to articles about rape, try to find a more unbiased source, will ya?

The subject of my objection was Orac - not Vox: Orac's calling the man a misogynist and I'm saying that's not the case and an intelligent person should be more circumspect about suggesting such a thing. It's like that latest Geraldine Ferraro story where people are saying she's a racist because she said something racial. Or the ferocious attack on Don Imus, charging him as a racist, when it should be expected that anyone with a college education (I'm euphemistically referring to the basketball players there) would have said "Sticks and stones,..." and went on with their lives. Or even that travesty at Duke University - everybody was pretty sure about those guys, right? A bunch of white guys hiring a black stripper? Come on.

You guys are practicing Identity politics and, yea, I can see where it makes a dent, and I'm calling you on it, because it's wrong.

"Shorter Crack Emcee: WOMAN BAD! MAN GOOD!"

Only if you can't think with any complexity. Only if you think men, or their role in society, have little to no worth. Only if you're into Oprah. Only if you can't understand why that kid with the gun was looking at that woman like she was from Mars (and me along with him) while she was turning to me for help. Only if you believe equal protection under the law is the ability to have you slapped with domestic violence charges (the female attorney's standard first line of defense in divorce proceedings because it makes the man look bad - it's based on the assumption he is bad - plus the difficulty of proving a negative: "Hello, Officer, no I don't have any guns, nor do I have to leave the house for the next three months, why do you ask?") and all with no evidence is O.K.. Only if you're cowed by BS like Laser Potato put up, where merely talking critically about women is enough to get you branded a rape enabler, while, of course, women will say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, sounds like a fair free speech policy. You know, that kind of thing.

[Vox Day is] not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's an American, and he's got a beef - a legitimate one - and not being heard is a big part of it.

First, he's not even a knife--more like a rusty tea strainer: clogged with big chunks of obsolete material and adding an unpleasant taste to everything that filters through him. Second, other than the obvious free speech privileges, (which Orac, and you, and I also enjoy) is it important for the purposes of this discussion that he's 'an American'?
Third, well, shit. The legitimacy of his 'beef' is, indeed, the crux of this exchange. I don't believe that there is anything remotely legitimate about the opinion that women are of inferior intelligence, thus innately unsuited for careers in Science, Math, Engineering, etc. It is also patently absurd--and wholly wrong-- that the relative global prowess of these American pursuits is in danger of being corrupted or diluted by allowing women to participate in them.
You go on to say:

Orac's calling the man a misogynist and I'm saying that's not the case and an intelligent person should be more circumspect about suggesting such a thing.

In what reality are the views of Vox Day, summarized above, NOT misogynistic? They are the very epitome of misogyny. And, unlike the other examples you cite (Don Imus debacle, etc.), this is NOT an isolated utterance, or a joke gone too far, or a quote taken out of context and misinterpreted. These are Vox Day's views. He has written extensively on his belief that roughly 50% of humanity is inferior to the other 50% based solely on gender, and he uses that perceived inferiority to support some startlingly ugly invective. How can you possibly construe this as anything but misogyny?

Oldfart said:

It is quite possible to be enthusiastic about the broad horizons available to women today and to be antagonistic to some of the sillier and antagonistic productions of the anti-male movement. I don't agree much with TCE but I'm sure he can produce horror stories, as most males can, of court prejudices against males, particularly in incidents of a sexual nature.

Yes, we all have our horror stories, don't we? It is unequivocally wrong for anyone to falsely accuse another person of anything, to be sure. It is unfortunate that some (note: SOME!) women choose to abuse the system this way. However, this in no way mitigates or legitimizes misogyny as a general M.O. By all means, excoriate the person who did the shitty thing, but don't blame it on her gender rather than her messed up head, and DON'T use that person as an excuse to malign or mistrust an entire gender, or as a justification for any discrimination you witness or engage in.

That said, I don't believe that these stories of false accusations--as unfortunate and traumatic as they undoubtedly are-- are truly comparable to the other set of 'horror stories' we could cite if we were really gluttons for punishments: tragic tales of sexual assault, habitual abuse, discrimination, harassment, and disenfranchisement OF women, BY men. This is an entirely different kettle of fish, and trying to put this on a par with the current cultural trend of 'male bashing' is logically intractable. They are two entirely different problems.

(CMC:)...and to deny that it can tip too far, one way or the other, does a disservice to the idea of equality that, I think, we all desire.

This was so sensible--I almost felt a chorus of 'Kumbaya' welling up in my throat but then:

(CMC:)merely talking critically about women is enough to get you branded a rape enabler, while, of course, women will say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, sounds like a fair free speech policy.

Aaaaaaand the good feeling's gone again. Generalization from what a relatively small subset of women do to "[all] women..." is a poor tactic. Again, it is an unfortunate reality that SOME women take feminism to this extreme and intractable position. They are in the wrong. This is not an excuse to lump all women together as legally untouchable man-haters. It just isn't so. And as far as the rape enabler thing, I get that it is an unthinkable progression from thinking disparaging things about women to acting on similar feelings in a violent way--for YOU, and thankfully most men. However, the rampant use of throwaway gender-specific insults, the depiction of women as sex objects, the generally permissible grumbling about irrational female behavior, etc all prevalent in our culture help to make such a progression (from disgruntled thought to violent act) much easier for people who are so inclined to make the trip.

I disagree that you are 'branded' as anything, and there are clearly factors in play over which you have zero influence. But that's no reason for any of us not to change what we can. Do we really need to say 'bitch' or 'whore' (or any other of the myriad female-specific derogatory terms) when we really mean 'asshole'? Is it logical--does it feel 'fair'-- for your frustration with the behavior of certain women to raise your threshold for tolerating full blown misogyny?

If equality--that is, accepting that there are no quantitative differences in the intellectual abilities of Men vs. Women, and that each should have equal access and opportunities as regards education and career choices, etc.--is something you really believe in, why would the bad judgment, unpleasant attitudes, whatever, of a subset of women be enough to sway your support?

"is it important for the purposes of this discussion that he's 'an American'?"

It is to me: I like, and will defend, my countrymen - yourself included. Too many Americans (read Leftists) are so concerned about what France thinks, etc., forgetting we're supposed to be a country ourselves. Funny how they "get it" when Obama says it, though, ain't it? Screwy cultists.

And nobody's saying allowing women in science will corrupt it (though there is evidence that may be the case) but there are issues to be discussed. But, as the Larry Summer's debacle proves, it's much easier to stifle those discussions by going around calling people sexists, racists, misogynists, etc.. And, like I said, Miss Sommers wrote her article first (which I linked to) but none of you want to deal with that. Why? Is it because she's a woman?

"How can you possibly construe this as anything but misogyny?"

Because I'm not going to play identity politics - I'm going to deal with the issues he raises. I agree with you (the guy gets a lot of stuff wrong) but deal with his issues anyway because, sometimes a broke clock is on time, remember? Even Orac is noticing cultism in homeopathy after telling me I was wrong about it.

"I don't believe that these stories of false accusations--as unfortunate and traumatic as they undoubtedly are-- are truly comparable to the other set of 'horror stories' we could cite if we were really gluttons for punishments: tragic tales of sexual assault, habitual abuse, discrimination, harassment, and disenfranchisement OF women, BY men. This is an entirely different kettle of fish, and trying to put this on a par with the current cultural trend of 'male bashing' is logically intractable. They are two entirely different problems."

First, you have to buy into the idea they're all true, to say criticisms by males are wrong. It's like buying into tales of racism: my days (as a black man) go pretty smoothly but you wouldn't be able to tell that from the stories. Which is true?

"Generalization from what a relatively small subset of women do to "[all] women..." is a poor tactic."

Dude, we're just talking here. If you want to play semantics, go ahead, but that's no way to play fair. I've mentioned Miss Sommers - and defend many women (including recently Miss Spitzer) on my blog. But to deny there's a "women's movement" that spits out garbage like "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" - and it gets play (without serious criticism) is to give up too much.

"the rampant use of throwaway gender-specific insults, the depiction of women as sex objects, the generally permissible grumbling about irrational female behavior, etc all prevalent in our culture help to make such a progression (from disgruntled thought to violent act) much easier for people who are so inclined to make the trip."

Paris Hilton. Defend her. Nobody's making her be what she is. Oprah. Defend her. Nobody's making her be what she is. Shall I go on?

"I disagree that you are 'branded' as anything, and there are clearly factors in play over which you have zero influence. But that's no reason for any of us not to change what we can. Do we really need to say 'bitch' or 'whore' (or any other of the myriad female-specific derogatory terms) when we really mean 'asshole'? Is it logical--does it feel 'fair'-- for your frustration with the behavior of certain women to raise your threshold for tolerating full blown misogyny?"

Growing up in the ghetto, I've seen "full blown misogyny" and nothing you point to is it. That's all I'm saying: You've lowered the bar, to the point where free speech is threatened, and that's a bigger deal to me - as it should be to everyone. I've heard worse intentional venom in Led Zepplin than in most Rap songs (where the speaker seems to, at least, care) but who gets punished? Do you see what I'm getting at?

"If equality--that is, accepting that there are no quantitative differences in the intellectual abilities of Men vs. Women, and that each should have equal access and opportunities as regards education and career choices, etc.--is something you really believe in, why would the bad judgment, unpleasant attitudes, whatever, of a subset of women be enough to sway your support?"

For the very reason I said: You don't disallow people to speak to get your way. That's Liberal Fascism - something else people want to deny - but it's that simple.

Well, maybe it's just a stupid left-wing American woman thing, but I think that loading up a comment on someone else's blog with a months' worth of links to your own is pretty rude. Besides, citing yourself as proof doesn't count as providing evidence.

Vox Day's sweeping generalizations, presented as fact without even an anecdote to justify them, are indeed misogynistic. It doesn't take long, looking at his blog, to see that his hatred and disdain for so many different kinds of people stems from somewhere inside himself - not from any kind of evidence that his strawmen (and women) have ever existed. It's been a while since I've subjected myself to his site, but unless something has changed, he is also fond of quoting himself as proof.

Anyone who can predict "biology classes being taught by lesbian professors who believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth or calculus courses being taught by women who can't do long division" as a viable future has too much time on his hands, and should get out from behind the computer and meet more real people. It's a fearmongering technique; it's hateful and divisive, does nothing to illustrate a real situation or inform people of a real problem; it just adds fuel to the fire that already burns in angry, credulous people.

"Well, maybe it's just a stupid left-wing American woman thing, but I think that loading up a comment on someone else's blog with a months' worth of links to your own is pretty rude."

Alright, you think it's pretty rude. Where do we go from there? I've mentioned Orac on my blog many more times than I've linked to here, and this is his real estate, so the choice to print was his. I don't know why you'd let such a thing make you angry but, sad to say, it does seem like a "stupid left-wing American woman thing" to pick a fight over something petty like that. You choose to dislike me, and rather than dealing with what I'm saying, that's how you choose to express it: I got it. But it makes about as much sense as the charges against Vox.

"Citing yourself as proof doesn't count as providing evidence."

Agreed. Fine. You got me there. I thought, with my sister and all, I had a unique perspective to bring to the discussion. Silly me. Never mind.

"Vox Day's sweeping generalizations, presented as fact without even an anecdote to justify them, are indeed misogynistic."

Misogyny is a hatred of women, not making generalities, jokes, or even put-downs about them. The suggestion such views about women (or anybody else) can't be made is silly and childish. Grow up. Some people ain't all fired up, suck-up in love with "every move you make"; get over it.

"It doesn't take long, looking at his blog, to see that his hatred and disdain for so many different kinds of people stems from somewhere inside himself - not from any kind of evidence that his strawmen (and women) have ever existed."

Save the NewAge psychology lesson. The man's got a beef that he says comes from without. Society ain't some perfect gift wrapped in plastic; and stuff pisses people off; why's it got to be more than that? I linked to Christina Hoff Sommers' column on the same subject, which (I as I said) I think inspired Vox's column, care to comment on it? It's got lots of facts and documentation for you. Oh - and in your comments - please tell me if she's a misogynist as well.

"It's been a while since I've subjected myself to his site, but unless something has changed, he is also fond of quoting himself as proof."

It's an opinion column. Sigh.

"Anyone who can predict "biology classes being taught by lesbian professors who believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth or calculus courses being taught by women who can't do long division" as a viable future has too much time on his hands, and should get out from behind the computer and meet more real people."

You don't live anywhere near the San Francisco Bay Area, do you? (It's where I live and such things, not to mention even weirder ones, do happen.) And you've obviously never heard of "Fuzzy Math" either. (Thank you, Bill Clinton. Of course, now, that evil Bush is working to get it out of our schools but we can't give Bush any credit for anything, can we?)

"It's a fearmongering technique; it's hateful and divisive, does nothing to illustrate a real situation or inform people of a real problem; it just adds fuel to the fire that already burns in angry, credulous people."

Please. You say he's "hateful". He just doesn't like you any more than you like him. And who says a person can't be "divisive"? When did the right to make you unfortable disappear? Was there an announcement? Or how about anger? Who gets to control that part of someone's behavior, other than the angry person, now? And, wow, Vox thinks the problem is real. I think the problem is real. Miss Sommers thinks the problem is real. And we all probably think it's "a stupid left-wing American woman thing" to maintain that it isn't. Which should be enough to justify an article. Sorry but "those be da breaks".

[That's Liberal Fascism - something else people want to deny - but it's that simple.]
WOW! YOU LOSE!
alternet (dot) org/mediaculture/72960/
sadlyno (dot) com/archives/8200 (dot) html
sadlyno (dot) com/archives/8301(dot) html
[I linked to Christina Hoff Sommers' column on the same subject, which (I as I said) I think inspired Vox's column, care to comment on it?]
The plural of anecdote is not data.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
[Agreed. Fine. You got me there. I thought, with my sister and all, I had a unique perspective to bring to the discussion. Silly me. Never mind.]
Your claim of your sister being raped is a thinly-disguised variant of "some of my best friends are black/gay/Muslim!" and an attempt at magically shielding yourself from any criticism.

I like, and will defend, my countrymen - yourself included. Too many Americans (read Leftists) are so concerned about what France thinks, etc., forgetting we're supposed to be a country ourselves.

I truly don't know how or why a post on the specific words of one foolish individual became a vehicle for your political agenda. Your freaky insight into my political leanings based on my opinion of one misogynist is truly dazzling. However, like all other 'seers' you suck at it, and your wild stabs in the dark are not on target. I am far less of a liberal than I'm sure you'd be comfortable admitting, as that would dwindle one of your massive straw men down to nothing. However, as long as you keep defining a conservative as someone who isn't fussed by Vox Day's insulting and baseless ideas about women, I'll remain happily to the left of YOU.

And nobody's saying allowing women in science will corrupt it (though there is evidence that may be the case) but there are issues to be discussed.

Bullshit. That is exactly what Vox Day IS saying, loud and clear:

Vox Day said: "If successful in [application of title IX to academic science], and initial signs indicate that they probably will be, in 30 years, academic science in America will be no more intellectually respectable or relevant than womyn's studies are today".

This is quite a different basis for an objection to the title IX thing than what Sommers has written about. She clearly states:

Very few women can compete on equal terms with men in lacrosse, wrestling, or basketball; by contrast, there are many brilliant women in the top ranks of every field of science and technology, and no one doubts their ability to compete on equal terms.

Not a whiff of misogyny there, and the rest of her article discusses the nuts and bolts of the potentially detrimental effect that something like title IX might have on the sciences. I don't really agree with everything she has to say, but I respect the way in which she parses and presents the material.

And your 'evidence' about the nursing school woo? Some nurses buy into 'healing touch' or similar garbage, ergo allowing women into science careers will destroy science? Quite the logical fallacy you've got going on there. Hey wait a minute! Lehigh Biochemistry Professor and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe is a MAN! It's the MEN that are destroying science, damn them!

But to deny there's a "women's movement" that spits out garbage like "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" - and it gets play (without serious criticism) is to give up too much.

Sigh. Another straw man. I've made no such denial. I've tried to stress that it doesn't matter. Actions of vocal feminists might annoy you, but they should have no effect on the empirical worth of any goal to eradicate discrimination based on sex. Ditto Paris and Oprah. What on earth do either of them have to do with gender bias in science? Are you saying that all women deserve to bear the responsibility for their insipid twaddle? What am I supposed to do, apologize for them? Holy shit, does this mean I'm on the hook for Ann Coulter too? Nooooooooo! Really, dude, this is reductionist to the point of absurdity.

You've lowered the bar, to the point where free speech is threatened, and that's a bigger deal to me - as it should be to everyone.

What absolute crap. Neither I, nor Orac, nor any of the other hundreds of commenters on any of the blogs discussing Vox Day have suggested that he--or anyone else-- be denied free speech. He has every right to spew whatever feculent garbage he chooses, and I have every right to deride and deconstruct it to my heart's content. I'm quite happy with that arrangement. I don't advocate censorship in any way, and your straw man is showing again. Free speech is as much a right as it is a responsibility, though. You are constitutionally entitled to say what you like, but once it's out there you own it. I'm merely advocating that people think about the words that they use, and the message they are sending. That's not an edict. It's not binding in any way. You will undoubtedly disregard it--or warp it into yet another straw man--and continue to endorse gender-specific verbal abuse directed at the liberal women you despise, using your sister's tragic experience as your shield against criticism. You are well within your rights to do this, and I'm well within my rights to say I think it sucks.

Oh, and back to the topic of gender bias in academia, this blog has a recently compiled list of references:

Gender bias, particularly in the sciences, is a real phenomenon. I personally don't believe that a title IX-like structure is the way to fix it, but there are certainly some issues to discuss. None of these issues, however, bear any resemblance to the ones currently stuck in Vox Day's craw.

It's been a real slice, Crack Emcee.

DanioPhD = a woman with a PhD in molecular biology, currently researching human retinal disease in the model animal Danio rerio

They make you do answer those questions. There's no "piss off" button or I woulda pressed it. Now, how "telling" is that? You guys crack me up with living your lives based on your assumptions. I thought scientists were smarter than that but, well, I guess that's been my point on this post all along.

Laser Potato,

You're funny: You've found some left-wing criticisms of the book and think that negates the Liberal Fascism charge? Hilarious. They could be wrong, y'know? Being Left-wing criticisms, it's in their interest to deny it. That, alone, doesn't make them wrong (to me) but it doesn't help their argument any. And it's even funnier when, on my site, I've posted tons of quotes, from unbiased folks, who - when not even trying to make a political point, y'know, just "talking" - say the same thing. Somebody's lying - or in denial - and it's not me. You'll have to find those quotes yourself:

Crack Emcee: I'm damned if I'm going to increase your blog traffic by following the links (which is transparently what you are trolling for), so let me guess: you got screwed over in a divorce, so now you reflexively jump to the defense of any male who gets accused of misogyny, 'cuz the System Is Rigged Against Us.

Well, I'm sorry if it sucks to be you. BUT:
Vox's spew about wimmin scientists is idiotic bullshit with no redeeming qualities, and no excuse (and rather tenuous connection to your complaints). Defending him on the grounds of some notion of Male Solidarity is stupid, and merely discredits whatever legitimate point you may have regarding the relative status of men and women.

I don't have time to answer in full, but, for now, I will say it sure is funny that on the same day Orac does a post on woo in medical school, I do a post that makes the point of woo being primarily spread by women.

How much do you folks know about occultists? Because it sure seems like nothing. Like I said, Orac said I was wrong about cultism in homeopathy but it sure seems to be the case. Liberal Fascism is another one that's gonna get you. They're "connected" as the NewAgers say. The inroads occultists have made in science and medicine is real. Ignore it all you want but I've heard Orac do the "what is happening to us" bit and can't say anything but "I warned you".

Face it, folks: Women mess up, just like men, but in different ways and for different reasons - to call them on it ain't misogyny but the right thing to do.

And one last thought: If you guys were noticing these things yourselves - and truly calling people on it - it wouldn't be left to idiots like Vox to be saying, "Hey - wait a minute - that's not right." Like I said in my post today (and since I gather you're a woman) why aren't you pulling your "sisters" aside and asking what their problem is? You leave it up to men - or conservatives - so you can bash them for being men or conservatives. (The all-purpose targets of choice these days.) When my sister got raped, my brother and I handled it. Men taking on men. I've stood up to tons of men for less - and many for abusing women - where are the girls when girls mess up? Usually waiting for a man to "do something".

A generalization? You bet. But it's still true. And I've got the scars to prove it.

TMR got over a thousand visitors yesterday - with very few from here - so, please, spare me your assumptions (man, you guys love to live off them - that's not good): I link to my blog because these are the subjects I write on. It's easier to find them than trying to find individual articles. There are links in the posts you could look at, if you cared.

Go tell Mrs. Spitzer she has no right to be pissed - or won't be able to learn anything - from the experience she's going through now. You fools can be much too callous about divorce. That's why it's such a taboo to talk about:

Alright, you think it's pretty rude. Where do we go from there? I've mentioned Orac on my blog many more times than I've linked to here, and this is his real estate, so the choice to print was his.

Mentioning or even linking out in your own blog is quite a different thing than promoting yourself on someone else's. Do you really not see the difference? And Orac doesn't delete comments for rudeness - but that doesn't make them any less rude.

I don't know why you'd let such a thing make you angry but, sad to say, it does seem like a "stupid left-wing American woman thing" to pick a fight over something petty like that.

Mmmmm. . .I smell projection. Not angry, not picking a fight, just pointing out a fact.

You choose to dislike me, and rather than dealing with what I'm saying, that's how you choose to express it: I got it. But it makes about as much sense as the charges against Vox.

Projection again. How could I dislike you without knowing you personally? I'm finding that your comments represent an attitude that discourages real dialogue because they display an anger and lack of empathy, and a certainty that nobody could tell you anything you don't already know.

Citing yourself as proof doesn't count as providing evidence."
Agreed. Fine. You got me there. I thought, with my sister and all, I had a unique perspective to bring to the discussion. Silly me. Never mind.

I'm not seeing how that has brought a unique perspective, and you'd think I would, seeing as how I was actually raped, myself. Nope, not getting it.

Misogyny is a hatred of women, not making generalities, jokes, or even put-downs about them. The suggestion such views about women (or anybody else) can't be made is silly and childish. Grow up. Some people ain't all fired up, suck-up in love with "every move you make"; get over it.

Mmm-hmm. And racism is a hatred of persons of a different race, not making generalities, jokes, or even put-downs about them, right? If you read a blog saying that all black men were such-and-such, making jokes about black people, and putting down black people using a stereotype to represent them as a whole, you wouldn't, for a moment, feel that the blogger was a racist, would you? You wouldn't feel any kind of irritation, and you'd vehemently defend him against anyone who claimed that he was a racist, right? To do otherwise would be "silly and childish", as you say. (BTW, I'm extremely grateful that "Some people ain't all fired up, suck-up in love with 'every move you make'", because that's a song about a sick man stalking his ex-girlfriend.)

"It's been a while since I've subjected myself to his site, but unless something has changed, he is also fond of quoting himself as proof."
It's an opinion column. Sigh.

So? If your opinion has no basis in fact, then it's as valuable as a TimeCube.

Please. You say he's "hateful". He just doesn't like you any more than you like him. And who says a person can't be "divisive"? When did the right to make you unfortable disappear? Was there an announcement? Or how about anger? Who gets to control that part of someone's behavior, other than the angry person, now?

I don't care about him. However, from what I've read, Vox does indeed spend a good deal of energy hating people he's never met, hating the very idea of people who might or might not exist, and so there might well be a possibility that he hates me. I don't know where you've gotten the idea that anyone is trying to censor this man - he's just calling people out, and they're answering. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Criticism.

And, wow, Vox thinks the problem is real. I think the problem is real. Miss Sommers thinks the problem is real. And we all probably think it's "a stupid left-wing American woman thing" to maintain that it isn't. Which should be enough to justify an article. Sorry but "those be da breaks".

There are people who think the problem of the Jews is real, there are people who think that the problem with the Mexicans is real, there are people who think that the problem with the New Atheists is real, and they're all writing articles and blogs and letters to the editor. There are people who think that aliens made crop circles and regularly abduct people. There are people who think all kinds of things, and their research comes from their own heads, and sometimes from other people whose research comes from their own heads. Sure, they can say it, and of course there'll be people who take it at face value, and no doubt there will be many who embrace it as fact because it matches what they thought already. Does this mean that it's true? Does it mean that everyone must accept it? Does it mean that it's immune to criticism? Of course not. Critical thinkers who question, debate, or debunk, aren't trying to suppress free speech, just trying to get people to see what's behind the curtain.

So, what's next for you? I'd like to suggest you next lead a crusade against the band, Ween: They're obviously "misogynists" too.

Ha! I've got to let the rest of this go. (Racism? Ooh, I'm black, so I guess you got me!) As a musician, you calling Ween a "crappy band" said all I need to know. From the All Music Guide:

"Ween was the ultimate cosmic goof of the alternative rock era, a prodigiously talented and deliriously odd duo whose work traveled far beyond the constraints of parody and novelty into the heart of surrealist ecstasy. Despite a mastery for seemingly every mutation of the musical spectrum, the group refused to play it straight; in essence, Ween was bratty deconstructionists, kicking dirt on the pop world around them with demented glee. Along with the occasional frat-boy lapses into misogyny, racism, and homophobia, the band's razor-sharp satire cut to the inherently silly heart of rock & roll with hilariously acute savagery; fueled by psilocybin mushrooms and an all-consuming craving for hot meals, Ween created their own self-contained universe, a parallel dimension where the only sacred cow was their own demon god, the Boognish."

Yea, that means they suck. (And they're married, with black and gay friends, and everything. How did that happen?) Music: "The most spiritual of all the arts" as they say.

I'm telling you - when it comes to lives of real people (especially Real Americans) - you post-boomer, living through the politics of the 60's nerds miss the point, probably, on everything,...but, especially, the important stuff.

Read up on cultism: It'll probably do you a lot of good. You might even become people yourselves.

The Crack Emcee sez:
I don't have time to answer in full, but, for now, I will say it sure is funny that on the same day Orac does a post on woo in medical school, I do a post that makes the point of woo being primarily spread by women.

I'm not sure woo is *primarily* spread by women. There are plenty of woo-peddlers all over the place, and it seems that the most prominent ones are male, but I do think an awful lot of the "legwork" of promoting woo is indeed done by women. I do not think this is a reason to fear women in the sciences, though. On the contrary, I think this is a symptom of the dearth of women in the sciences.

In other words, women are more likely to be suckered by woo because they tend not to be as well educated in the sciences. This is not something fundamental to double X chromosomes; it's cultural. Girls grow up thinking science is unimportant. This is partly because of an inferiority complex ("girls aren't good enough at science stuff") and also, perversely, because of a *superiority* complex ("women have natural intuition"). The latter is very dangerous; it's an old myth, and it has been persisting very stubbornly long past the days of the old wives' tale, perhaps in part because of its seductive nature. Who wouldn't want to think that they don't *need* science because they have a natural intuition that's even better? But this thinking leads straight to the antics of a certain former Playboy Bunny proclaiming that her "mommy sense" told her how to cure her son's autism. (Never mind he's not cured at all.)

The solution for this is not to fear women in the sciences. (For one thing, women are certainly not the only source of woo. Just look at the nonsense going on over at Georgetown right now.) Feminism has certainly contributed to the problem, since the most ardent elements tend to regard anything by a dead white male as suspect, and that happens to include most of the foundations of Western civilization, including conventional science. But this doesn't mean women are a threat to science. On the contrary, it means that women are especially vulnerable to unscientific thinking. The solution is to arm girls, from a young age, with strong critical thinking skills. Then they won't find woo appealing, and those who go into nursing won't be bringing that woo along with them.

So women being susceptible to woo isn't a reason to deny them access to higher scientific education -- it's a reason why we need to address the gender inequity in science, but at a *young* age. By the time they're 19 and ready to start college, it's much too late.

Going back a bit via Google I find...Oooh, Crack Emcee trolls lots of other science blogs and brands everything he dosen't agree with as "new age". He's the troll who used to show up on Denialism Blog as Sam Scam Sham (or was it Sam Sham Scam? I forget) and he's also a climate change denialist.
BUS-TED

As i said earlier, you guys should study cultism more: The prominent ones appear to be male because the women like the "hidden", mysterious, aura of the sisterhood - and they can get away with a lot more chaos if they don't stand out.

You say girls not being interested in science is cultural but that's not how it appears. It's like the gun-toting kid I mentioned: His parents (who I know) wouldn't encourage it, his teachers (who I know) wouldn't either. We live in the San Francisco Bay Area - not a hot bed of gun enthusiasm here. See what I'm getting at? If what I'm seeing is true, then the truth is boys are being punished because they're drawn to things girls aren't. That little boy certainly wasn't being made to feel O.K. by the female adult in his charge.

Laser Potato,

I call people NewAge who exhibit NewAge behaviors - like Calli saying people "fear" women (a constant NewAge trope) or scientists who align themselves with pagan environmentalists (the climate change battle ain't over yet) or your own efforts to constantly pat yourself on the back for nothing: I'm Sham Scam Sam and (there's a long story for that I won't go into here, except to say I never hid it, so who are exposing?) you're really proving yourself to be an idiot.

I truly expect more than your juvenile behavior when I post on a science blog but, like on Denialism, it seems to be par for the course. I got "disenvoweled" there. Ooohh. After that, I imagine Mark went back to playing Dungeons and Dragons.

"Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved."

I wrote a Post about you guys/gals/ScienceBlog. It's called Big Babies.

Philospher/Therapist,

If you call what's been displayed here "reason, persuasion and new ideas" then you're neither a philosopher or a therapist. I must admit I do enjoy watching you guys pat yourselves on the back (Laser Potato - "BUS-TED"): It must get tiring though.

Not surprisingly, CMC has a new blog entry about this post where he declares victory despite getting his ass kicked, and calling us "just another bunch of the usual childish left-wing whiners beholden to a pussy-whipped NewAge outlook." Erm. Exactly how is correcting your obvious logical fallacies and outright lies a "NewAge outlook?"

It seems that anyone who doesn't agree with CMC's radical theses is automatically sorted into the industrial sized, multipurpose 'New Age' bin. It's a bullet-proof defense, for sure, second only to his masterful command of the "I know you are, but what am I?" strategy.

I also find it amusing that he terminated our dialogue completely once I 'outed' myself as female. Who's the coward now?

"Troglodyte seems to have emerged from the mists of time untouched by human evolution. Devoid of a single progressive idea and lacking the slightest awareness of social and cultural advances, Troglodyte has developed an incoherent political philosophy that he characterizes as "conservative" or "libertarian", but which could be more accurately described as "bigoted narcissism". His aggressive posturing often frightens off weaker, more timid Warriors. In pitched battle, however, Troglodyte easily loses control and his attack quickly degenerates into a rant. Just for the fun of it, Weenie, Issues. Pinko and Evil Clown will sometimes deliberately goad him into a towering rage."

Donate

Scienceblogs is part of Science 2.0, a pro-science outreach nonprofit operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please make a tax-deductible donation if you value independent science communication, collaboration, participation, and support open access.

You can also shop using Amazon Smile and though you pay nothing more we get a tiny something.

More by this author

Today is the last day that ScienceBlogs will exist. Sometime today the site will go into read-only mode. A few days later, it will disappear completely from the Internet. It's a sad thing to contemplate after all these years. Whatever happened later, I will always be grateful for the start in…

Here's a brief update on the move, announced last week.
Things are progressing, and most of my old material has been transferred to the new blog, which is located at respectfulinsolence.com. Of course, there are still some things to tweak and fix, which is why, given how insanely busy this week is…

Well, QEDCon is over, and this box of blinky lights is on its way back across the pond to its home in the US, having had an excellent time imbibing skepticism from its (mostly) British and European partners in skepticism.
Before I left, I made a somewhat cryptic remark about "major changes" to this…

As you probably noticed, I didn't manage a post yesterday. Nor did I manage one today, other than this. That's because I was busy preparing for QEDCon, where I will be on a panel and giving a talk, and, of course, putting together my talk. As I write this, I'm horrendously jet lagged; so I probably…

QEDCon is fast approaching (indeed, I can't believe I have to leave for Manchester tomorrow night), and because my talk there will be about the phenomenon of "integrative medicine," I've been thinking a lot about it. As I put together my slides, I can't help but see my talk evolving to encompass…

More reads

Three statisticians go hunting for rabbit. They see a rabbit. The first statistician fires and misses, her bullet striking the ground below the beast. The second statistician fires and misses, their bullet striking a branch above the lagomorph. The third statistician, a lazy frequentist, says, "We got it!"
OK, that joke was not 1/5th as funny as any of XKCD's excellent jabs at the frequentist-…

“And there is the headlight, shining far down the track, glinting off the steel rails that, like all parallel lines, will meet in infinity, which is after all where this train is going.” -Bruce Catton
At the end of each week here at Starts With A Bang, it's important to take a look back at all we've gone through, and give some time and energy to all your thoughts on it. This week, there have been…

"I conclude, therefore, that this star is not some kind of comet or a fiery meteor... but that it is a star shining in the firmament itself one that has never previously been seen before our time, in any age since the beginning of the world." -Tycho Brahe
I want to take you back in history, back to the middle of the 1500s. Night skies were spectacular, even from the world's most cosmopolitan…